|
Post by sankari on Mar 28, 2012 20:28:14 GMT
Bart Ehrman is an expert historian? No, and I didn't say he was. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 28, 2012 20:50:59 GMT
But getting indignant over "Ehrman didn't even mention my book" is childish. It's not when your book and its thesis are the subject of a book under review. It is if you're an unqualified self-published amateur outside and unknown to academia whose work has never been subjected to peer review by qualified professionals. (Holding avoids peer review and ironically uses the same excuses as Dougherty and D M Murdock to justify his decision). No, I think it reflects his professionalism.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 28, 2012 21:46:50 GMT
JP Holding is getting at someone on here?: tektonticker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/book-snap-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist.html 167 -- Interestingly, Ehrman takes on some of Richard Carrier's claims in his Not the Impossible Faith (NIF) concerning the idea of a humiliated messiah. In this Ehrman is on the same side as I am where I responded to NIF in its online version. What makes it interesting moreso if that if he is aware of NIF, he must also be substantially aware of what and who Carrier was responding to -- yet there's no hint or explanation of it whatsoever. Hmmm...
(Update for those looking for problems: And no...I'm not "miffed" about it. I simply find it curious given Ehrman's use of arguments that somewhat resemble mine in TIF with respect to crucifixion. Why would I be "miffed"? Because I want to sell TIF? Gee, if people look up Carrier's book because of Ehrman, they'll learn about mine too, right? Guh...golly... )
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Mar 29, 2012 6:15:12 GMT
JP Holding is getting at someone on here?: Yep, seems like he's in a tiff and no mistake.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 29, 2012 13:59:12 GMT
Personally I believe Erhman should not have engaged with Doherty's book at all. It will only inflate Doherty's ego and makes him think academia takes him seriously (despite his lack of peer review!)
Now we'll have no end of mythers claiming Erhman's response to Doherty proves their thesis is hammering at the gates and can no longer be ignored. He would have done better to ignore the internet amateurs and restrict himself to arguments from qualified professionals.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 29, 2012 19:53:39 GMT
If Holding has accurately represented Ehrman's treatment of Tacitus, it does seem like Ehrman has made a mistake in conceding so much. But getting indignant over "Ehrman didn't even mention my book" is childish. Holding is self-published, only known on a small corner of the internet, and even there is certainly not as high-profile as Carrier. With that said, Holding's book on the subject is probably good - our James even wrote a chapter in it. But no matter how good it is, plenty of people will pass it by because they find him abrasive. And if you know about the book, chances are you've developed an opinion on Holding's personality too. Holding's problem has little to do with his personality and everything to do with his credibility. Any Christian writing on this subject has something of a problem in this regard - namely, the danger of confirmation bias. Even the most liberal Christian has a serious incentive to come to the conclusion that there was an historical Jesus; one that non-Christians like Ehrman and myself simply don't have. However objective a Christian looking at this question tries to be, they will always have this handicap. And even if they manage to be wholly objective, they will always be seen to be likely to be less so than someone like Ehrman or myself. Holding, however, is more than just a Christian, he's a fundamentalist. The guy believes the Bible is literally true in every respect. He simply isn't objective, even if he tries to pretend to be. His credibility with anyone other than another literalist apologist is low but his credibility with non-Christians is instantly zero. Then there's his total lack of qualifications. And a few bungles he makes in his book. His personality is the least of his problems and Ehrman was quite right to ignore his book.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 29, 2012 19:58:35 GMT
Personally I believe Erhman should not have engaged with Doherty's book at all. It will only inflate Doherty's ego and makes him think academia takes him seriously ( despite his lack of peer review!) Now we'll have no end of mythers claiming Erhman's response to Doherty proves their thesis is hammering at the gates and can no longer be ignored. He would have done better to ignore the internet amateurs and restrict himself to arguments from qualified professionals. There is the same problem here that scientists have long had with Creationists - do you engage with them and run the risk of giving them some weird kind of credibility merely by taking them seriously or do you ignore them and let them claim "ignored iconoclast who can't be answered" status? Say whatever you like about Doherty (and anyone who knows me knows I'm hardly a fan), but his thesis is at least carefully thought through, well-researched and based on a close reading of the relevant material. It's also clearly more credible that, say, Acharya S's crap, even to the non-specialist. That's why he's the Myther of choice of most New Atheists. To not answer his stuff would have been a big mistake - it would have left him open to the charge of not being able to do so. That would have been far more of a problem than any residual credibility-by-association.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2012 20:43:21 GMT
Any Christian writing on this subject has something of a problem in this regard - namely, the danger of confirmation bias. Even the most liberal Christian has a serious incentive to come to the conclusion that there was an historical Jesus; one that non-Christians like Ehrman and myself simply don't have. What bearing does this have to the validity of what someone says? It's a puerile rationalization by appeal to motives not to pay attention on someone says. Reasonable people should be above asinine psychoanalysis. It makes them look, well, reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 29, 2012 21:29:51 GMT
Any Christian writing on this subject has something of a problem in this regard - namely, the danger of confirmation bias. Even the most liberal Christian has a serious incentive to come to the conclusion that there was an historical Jesus; one that non-Christians like Ehrman and myself simply don't have. What bearing does this have to the validity of what someone says? It's a puerile rationalization by appeal to motives not to pay attention on someone says. Reasonable people should be above asinine psychoanalysis. It makes them look, well, reasonable. What a bizarre outburst. Confirmation bias is a well-known phenomena and something we all have to guard against. How can you pretend that a Christian is not going to have to guard against it more in relation to a question central to Christian belief than someone like me? I clearly have far less at stake in this question than all but the most nominal Christian. And how can you deny that someone like Ehrman and myself will automatically be seen as more likely to be objective than any Christian? I regularly have my critiques of the Mythers held up as objective analysis by Christians for precisely this reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said - it's pure common sense.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 29, 2012 21:34:38 GMT
Any Christian writing on this subject has something of a problem in this regard - namely, the danger of confirmation bias. Even the most liberal Christian has a serious incentive to come to the conclusion that there was an historical Jesus; one that non-Christians like Ehrman and myself simply don't have. What bearing does this have to the validity of what someone says? It's a puerile rationalization by appeal to motives not to pay attention on someone says. Reasonable people should be above asinine psychoanalysis. It makes them look, well, reasonable. Matko, doubtless that's what the world ought to be like, but it's not the way it is, unfortunately. People do often seek to reinforce their own opinions, you and I included. Just yesterday I read about a respected Harvard professor who fiddled with his data to get the results he wanted. And it's not all bad. Scientists will rightly hold to their conclusions until the alternative evidence is overwhelming, otherwise they'd be all over the shop in their research (though it does lead to the situation described by the aphorism that science progresses one funeral at a time). Trust in people and confidence in our opinions are good things, we just have to know when we need to let them go. I think the preconceived views of the writer are relevant and I always try to find them out - not because i think they'll fake the evidence, but because I want to understand their slant. When I read on cosmology, I'd prefer an honest agnostic like Martin Rees to an atheist like Carl Sagan or a creationist. Likewise when I read on New Testament history, I'd prefer a reputable academic, whether sceptical like Ehrman or christian like Craig Evans (and I like to know where in that range they come from), rather than a fringe sceptic like Price or a myther, or a christian apologist like Craig Blomberg (though I would respect him than a myther) or Holding. Doesn't mean I wouldn't read Holding, and judge him on his merits (though I don't like his aggressive and sneering style), just means I am more wary of his judgment.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 29, 2012 22:44:22 GMT
There is the same problem here that scientists have long had with Creationists - do you engage with them and run the risk of giving them some weird kind of credibility merely by taking them seriously or do you ignore them and let them claim "ignored iconoclast who can't be answered" status? I believe that is a different problem, since creationists are a massive group with their own academics and qualified scholars who engage with peer review and academic literature, while mythicists are just a tiny bunch of loudmouthed nutters in a tiny corner of the internet who avoid peer review and academic literature like the plague on the basis of whacky conspiracy theories. I agree Doherty is the most credible of the internet amateurs (though that's still a dubious honour). But since when was the work of an internet amateur worth considering in academic circles, even if he's the pick of the bunch? I don't see Doherty's book discussed in academic Biblical studies journals. I don't see him cited regularly by experts. I don't see him celebrated as a credible scholar by anyone whose opinion carries any weight in the relevant fields. If all it takes to be taken seriously by academia these days is to start a website and self-publish a couple of reasonably well researched books, I'll begin my march to peer reviewed fame tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 30, 2012 10:44:35 GMT
Holding, however, is more than just a Christian, he's a fundamentalist. The guy believes the Bible is literally true in every respect. Ehhhh... I'm not sure that's quite correct (see also here and in the many places where copyist errors are explored). And whilst I mostly agree with you (and unkleE) about confirmation bias, does it make any difference with dealing with mythers and their mindset? For crying out loud, didn't one of them accuse you of being a closet catholic?!
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 30, 2012 16:29:49 GMT
There is the same problem here that scientists have long had with Creationists - do you engage with them and run the risk of giving them some weird kind of credibility merely by taking them seriously or do you ignore them and let them claim "ignored iconoclast who can't be answered" status? I believe that is a different problem, since creationists are a massive group .... Well, the sheep-like believers who swallow it are, anyway. The actual peddlers of the nonsense are fairly small in number. But ... Eh? The number of Creationists who have any qualifications in any relevant field of science is tiny. That's why they have to pad out their lists of "scientists who question evolution" with electrical engineers and industrial chemists. And they write peer reviewed papers in relevant journals? Unless I've missed the papers on how prelapsarian carnivorous dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden used their huge teeth to eat watermelons in Paleobiology or the geology of the Noachic Flood in the Journal of Stratigraphy, I'd seriously question what you're talking about there as well. Apart from being a larger bunch of loudmouth nutters and being in looney-tunes churches as well as on the net, that's a perfect description of the Creationists as well. It's not being considered "in academic circles". It's being addressed in a popular work aimed at non-specialists. And Ehrman is doing so for the reasons he lays out in his introduction: because non-specialists are being misled by Doherty's nonsense. See above. Ehrman tries to popularise scholarship and does a very good job of it. He's also written a book about the garbage in The Da Vinci Code, but it's hard to see that doing so somehow gives Dan Brown academic credibility - quite the opposite. And he tackled that cluster of muddle-headed nonsense for the same reason he's tackling the Mythers: because people who didn't know better were taking it seriously. He's trying to help them to know better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 18:20:28 GMT
Confirmation bias is a well-known phenomena and something we all have to guard against. I agree, but this has to do with the rationality of the belief, not with the truthfulness of the proposition to which a person having that belief assents. It's fallacious to dismiss a position as untrue based solely on the presumed motives of the person holding that position. Rationality and truth are separate notions. This by itself doesn't demonstrate bias. It could be true that in the case of the Christian there is more at stake, with no bias forming due to it. You can say that there is more at stake for the evolutionary biologist if evolution is shown as an impossibility. Think of the many careers that would be ruined if evolution didn't happen. In this situation you wouldn't, I'm sure, say biologists have a handicap. I'm not saying there couldn't be bias, but this has to be ascertained on a case-by-case basis. I bet it has something to do with the Myther's own bias of ignoring why non-atheists say because they're non-atheists, so an atheist must say the very same thing (in some case, however, even this doesn't work: a Myther told me that it's in Ehrman's interest that there is a historical Jesus because he brings food to Ehrman's table).
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 30, 2012 21:52:07 GMT
Confirmation bias is a well-known phenomena and something we all have to guard against. I agree, but this has to do with the rationality of the belief, not with the truthfulness of the proposition to which a person having that belief assents. It's fallacious to dismiss a position as untrue based solely on the presumed motives of the person holding that position. Rationality and truth are separate notions. Read what I said again and show me where I dismissed any position as untrue. You need to read more carefully before you go off half-cocked.
|
|